http://www.amazing1.com/hv-hf-power-supplies.htm
Still looking for a better way to power this idea.
Thoughts on making a Argon Tube.
On the problems of making a tube without a vacuum pump. Make the tube with two valves in the base. You could place the tube in a bucket of water with the base side up. Open both valves to let water in and air out.. Invert the tube and then slowly fill the tube with Argon in one valve. The incoming Argon would displace the water in the Argon tube which will use the other valve to escape. Once all the water is out shut off both valves. You would now have a Argon filled tube. To decrease the pressure you could hook up one valve to one of the vacuum lines of a car engine and allow it to suck out some of the Argon. You could use a cheap auto store vacuum gauge (used for measuring engine vacuums) hooked up to one of the ports to allow readings of different pressure settings for experimentation.
Later,
Tom
Statistics: Posted by HydroControl — Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:23 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
Gary[/quote]
It could be a misunderstanding. Could be a voltage multiplier variation using the junctions of the transistors and the capacitors. Certainly without any output load and without measuring input voltage and current versus output voltage and current with a load it leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Voltage increase does not really prove anything. I am surprised that JLN did not put a load on the measurement section and measure the current. That may have been on purpose. JLN is pretty good about detailed measurements and since this link was not posted on any of his forums as a information release I suspect he is not done with it yet. I just noticed that this was recently being worked on so I suspect he has a direction he is going and is documenting it as he goes. JLN has done a lot of excellent work and also done a couple of questionable projects years ago. Most of his recent work has been excellent so I hold out judgement until he actually makes a statement in one of his forums to look at it. Two big topics JLN likes to work on are 'free energy' and 'anti-gravity'. It was just interesting to see both of those in Seike area so maybe JLN is just doing a bit of investigation.
Later,
Tom
Statistics: Posted by HydroControl — Fri Dec 30, 2005 10:50 pm
]]>
]]>
So remember that, if you plan on building one, the aluminum spike has to be connected to negative. The negative plate is the one that slowly errodes away over time, the positive just gets more aluminum deposited on it from the negative.
I found that a 1:2 ratio transformer will work best for stepping up the AC before rectifying it to run a second tube off it. The transformer should be designed with a nice high impedance. I tried using a 120volt to 40 volt transformer in reverse, and even though it did work, it drained the output from the first tube drastically even without a load on the output of the transformer.
I had a 100 watt bulb connected to the output of the first tube, as well as the transformer. I then connected the output of the transformer to another tube, and it had enough voltage to get the tube to discharge. I used the output from the second tube, to run another 100 watt bulb. Both bulbs were light up, but not very brightly. I attributed this to the low impedance of the transformer. Before connecting the transformer, the 100 watt bulb is at full brightness, but as soon as I connect the transformer the bulb goes a lot dimmer. and when I connect the output of the transformer to another tube, the bulb goes even dimmer. I think I could get this thing to run itself if I could get a high impedance stepup transformer for it.
I tried another experiment today, I tried running a cold fuson reactor from it, the tungsten did arc but the tube would only put out 1350 mA, and the cold fuson reactor needs about 3500 mA to run properly. Maybe the output of 3 of these tubes would do a nice job.
What I don't like about the cold fuson reactor is, the tungsten rod gets erroded away to quickly, so even if it gets 2.5 times more power, the cost of the tungsten would be higher then the savings on electricity.
Anyway, I'm still experimenting, looking for a nice high impedance transformer now. If anyone has any other ideas, I might not know about, please let me know.
I also took a look at the new project Mr. Naudin is working on and found it to be very interesting, but he didn't do a current check on the higher voltage output. There are many ways to step up voltage, but the current goes down, if it also has a higher current output, it could run itself.
I will be keeping an eye on that device for the next while too.
Till later. Harold.
Statistics: Posted by AbbaRue — Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:22 pm
]]>
I suspect surface area may help the effect.
For those that enjoy experimenting have a look at Mr Naudin latest experiment involving 'free energy'. I suspect that Gary will find this very interesting.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/seike/gseav3.htm
Later,
Tom
Statistics: Posted by HydroControl — Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:33 am
]]>
Sorry but I don't have the ability to actually produce this argon tube.
But I Do have all the other parts as well as All the equipment to truely evaluate this circuit.
Take care......Gary
Statistics: Posted by chemelec — Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:51 am
]]>
Anyway, I have made measurements of the AC input as well as the DC input.
And I measure the AC input at slightly lower then the DC.
Eg. at 400 volts AC input on that side of the bridge rectifier,
I get about 420 volts DC on the output side of the the bridge rectifier.
I have been using 6 meters to do measurements, switching them around, to compare measurements.
I am using 2 analog meters and 4 digital meters.
I have kept the argon tube runing for over 3 hours at a time while I do these measurements.
I also have 3 different argon tubes I made. The two charts preasently on my website where made with the worst one of the three. I say worst because it slowly loses its vacuum over time, as I run it. That is why I got the fluctuations in the AC output of the tube.
When I first vacuum the tube out with fresh argon in it, the AC output voltage is very low, and it gradually increases as the level of vacuum decreases. The highest voltages, and the highest OU measurements I get are just before the vacuum gets to low to sustain the discharges.
The order the chart measurements are in is in accordance with the AC output voltage I was getting, a closer look at the charts will tell you this.
This is the reason for me using this tube, because I wanted to find the most efficiant level of vacuum for these tubes.
The correa's measurements indicate they got the best results at about 0.8 torr, my vacuum pump is capable of 0.005 torr, so my pump is capable of much lower vacuum then what is ideal, and I don't have a highly sensitive vacuum gauge, like they had, so I can't regulate the exact vacuum I want.
I just pump it down and then add small amounts of argon back into the tubes until I get the highest wattage output vs input.
Sorry I don't have better measureing equipment.
But I am a very strong skeptic, and I don't trust measurements anyway.
I am working on getting the tubes to run themselves, once I can do this I will be convinced that this is truly over unity, but not until, I don't care how much the measurements say I am getting OU. With the better tubes my measurements are typically reading more then 6 times the output wattage to input wattage. But like I said, I don't trust measuring instruments.
In studying the circuit thus far I see problems in trying to get one tube to run itself, but I should be able to get the output from one tube to run another, and then have the second tube run the first. Looks like this might be workable. The high OU measurements I am getting keep me going, and I will keep experimenting.
It would be awsome to have someone else build some of these tubes, and do some experimenting of there own, so we can compare notes.
So far I have been trying using voltage multipiers, to bring the AC output back up to the DC input I need, but it looks like there is to much loss or time delay, in the voltage multiplier circuits I've been using.
I think maybe a simple stepup transformer might work better. So if anyone builds there own tubes, maybe you can get hold of a 1:3 stepup transformer, I don't have one yet. trippleing the AC output should bring it up plenty high enough to run another tube.
I will be very excited, once I see these things continue running while disconnected from any external power source.
The correa's used gel cell batteries connected in series, to give them the voltage they needed, and they used the device to charge another set of gel cells. And by compareing the charge lost with the charge gained, they found a 1:5 difference between the two, but I can't afford a bunch of gel cells of my own, so I have to use the rectified AC.
Till later, happy experimenting Harold.
Statistics: Posted by AbbaRue — Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:44 am
]]>
Looking at the results we have a high voltage and low current input being converted to a lower voltage and higher current. The input 40 watt bulb will only light with higher current and will not care too much about the voltage. The 40 watt output bulb is getting bright because it is getting more current so looking at brightness of each bulb is not the solution. Looking at measurement points and equipment would be more useful.
Gary, I like your RMS Watt-meter. I will have to build me one.
Later,
Tom
Statistics: Posted by HydroControl — Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:30 am
]]>
As to measuring the True RMS Power, there is a fairly simple RMS Watt-meter in my projects at:
Seasons Greetings to All.....Take care, Gary
Statistics: Posted by chemelec — Mon Dec 26, 2005 12:01 pm
]]>
I've never seen anything about this either, but all measurement concerns aside, I'm quite interested. Seeing how easy this seems to build (can get argon from school shop class, as well as vacuum pump), I'm thinking about adding this to the long list of projects to do.
Statistics: Posted by Orange_Crusader — Sun Dec 25, 2005 7:16 pm
]]>
Later,
Tom
Statistics: Posted by HydroControl — Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:40 pm
]]>